This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
gamerunknown
THERE IS NO SURPLUS
It's not a problem of Social Security, it's a problem with
intergovernmental debt
.
Post by
Squishalot
THERE IS NO SURPLUS
It's not a problem of Social Security, it's a problem with
intergovernmental debt
.
Did you not read the second dot point in that link?
Debt held by government accounts or intragovernmental debt mainly includes non-marketable Treasury securities held in accounts administered by the federal government that are owed to program beneficiaries, such as the
Social Security Trust Fund
. Debt held by government accounts represents the cumulative surpluses, including interest earnings, of these accounts that have been invested in Treasury securities.
Your public debt is at an incredibly high level due to spending generally. The fact that you have high interest bills on said debt is due to spending in the past. A portion of that can be attributed to welfare or cash that has been set aside for welfare. You can't say that the lack of a surplus has nothing to do with welfare. If you were to reduce welfare, that would free up funds to repay debt.
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
Ryans plan may actually help lower healthcare costs.
I keep falling back to car insurance. When the government de-regulated auto insurance, its cost dropped. We saw companies like GIECO, Progressive, and 21st Century enter the market nationwide and in turn, the older major providers like Allstate had to drop their rates as well to remain competitive.
That is the premise of the Ryan Medicaid plan, as well as the GOP healthcare reform plan if (when) they repeal Obamacare. Allow insurance providers to sell nationwide, instead of limiting them to individual states. Competition will lower prices for everyone.
Now, back to car insurance. Car insurance companies also dictate the amounts that body shops charge. If a body shop estimates the damage to your car at $4000, and the insurance adjuster estimates it at $3000, nearly all shops will fix your car for the $3000 price. Thats all the insurance will pay, so the shop will lower its price to get the job.
The same should hold true for medical care. As health insurance becomes more competitive, thus less expensive, they will begin to dictate what medical care costs. My personal doctor already does this to some extent. Insurance only pays him between $50 and $75 for an office visit. So, he allows uninsured paitents to pay the same cost, assuming they pay at the time of the visit. This is much cheaper than many other doctors charge.
Post by
gamerunknown
Your public debt is at an incredibly high level due to spending generally.
Not my public debt. Social Security is funded through
payroll taxes
which explains its surplus - the other non-welfare programs are indebted to the welfare program, so actually paying welfare is not the cause of the debt. Sure, one could cut social security programs and maintain the payroll taxes, but that doesn't mean the program is insolvent, it means the other taxes were insufficient to pay for the other programs.
If we could get costs under control, we'd be set.
Easier said than done
.
If your health care is 100% covered and you never see any bills you will take everything you can get.
Why not adopt a Scandinavian healthcare model? Lower debt to GDP ratio, lower expenditure on healthcare, higher lifespan outcomes, lower infant mortality.
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Social Security is funded through payroll taxes which explains its surplus - the other non-welfare programs are indebted to the welfare program, so actually paying welfare is not the cause of the debt. Sure, one could cut social security programs and maintain the payroll taxes, but that doesn't mean the program is insolvent, it means the other taxes were insufficient to pay for the other programs.
I think we're saying the same thing. If you cut social security programs and maintain the taxes, that frees up cash for other services or reducing external government debt. I never suggested that the program is insolvent, only that you're spending a truckload on it.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#50: When are drone killings illegal?
Taken from
here
.
Post by
Adamsm
You know, I'm going to ask the obvious question here when it comes to legality: Who would you charge for this action? Are you going to bring the button pusher who fired the drone up on charges? Are you going to charge his commanding officer? Are you going to charge the commander of the vessel the drone was fired from? Will you charge the General in command of this branch of the military forces? Are you going to charge the President?
Drones are nearly the perfect weapon to use for plausible deniability: After all, you can always tell the media that at the time of the firing of the drone for the attack, as far as anyone in the intelligent community knew that school house was full of anti-country forces...and the fact that when the weapon hit, it killed a school full of children well...that was just bad luck.
Any time a drone kills something that isn't the actual target, it falls under that idiotic umbrella of 'friendly' fire and dumb bombs. But I guess that's what war is heading to now a days, just point and shoot.
At least now it's understandable why that American's Army training...I mean, 'video game' is so popular.
The above is nothing but opinions of the user, but we all know that anyways.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gnomerdon
i dont know much about the laws with drones.
but in military use, it's alot safer to send out a drone than send out a group of soldiers who may risk death.
Post by
Thror
You know, I'm going to ask the obvious question here when it comes to legality: Who would you charge for this action? Are you going to bring the button pusher who fired the drone up on charges? Are you going to charge his commanding officer? Are you going to charge the commander of the vessel the drone was fired from? Will you charge the General in command of this branch of the military forces? Are you going to charge the President?
Drones are nearly the perfect weapon to use for plausible deniability: After all, you can always tell the media that at the time of the firing of the drone for the attack, as far as anyone in the intelligent community knew that school house was full of anti-country forces...and the fact that when the weapon hit, it killed a school full of children well...that was just bad luck.
*ahem* I think answering your obvious question is pretty easy. The drone is a weapon, same as a bomb or a gun. If someone kills someone with a weapon, you blame the user of the weapon. If the user of the weapon is just fulfilling a command that was carried out and he was obliged to listen to it, you go to investigate that command. Who carried it out? Was this person informed of the possible occurrence of civilians in the area? If said commander did not care about the civilians, there is your guy. If the command was given under flawed information (said commander was told by someone that there are no civilians in the area), you go and track that information. Who said there will not be civilians in the area? Why did he fail? Has everyone involved fulfilled all their tasks and done everything they had to to ensure there were no civilian casualties? Whenever you find a person at which the answer is "no", you can put some of the blame on him.
Drones are not different from any other weapon in the way that
someone
can be held responsible for their actions
.
Then again, if your shiny American government just decides that it will not hold its men responsible for the casualties they cause, that is your problem.
You shoot someone with the .50 cal the report will say you tryed to shoot rifle out of hands. Due to it being equipment that needs to be destroyed. But you missed and shot him in the chest. Same with rockets you had to take out the truck with a possible ied the guy just happened to be on it.
So most likely any time its illegal they just use a similar defense. They were attempting to shoot down a piece of military hardware vital national defense ect ect.
And this sort of defense actually works in the US army? Can anyone just come up with a bull&*!@ fairytale and make up excuses like that? Are you basing your words on anything or are you just pulling assumptions?
Post by
Skreeran
#50: When are drone killings illegal?
Taken from
here
.When you use a drone to bomb a family of four in suburban Wisconsin?
Post by
Adamsm
Then again, if your shiny American government just decides that it will not hold its men responsible for the casualties they cause, that is your problem.I'm Canadian Thorr lol.
Post by
Thror
I'm Canadian Thorr lol.
And I am Thror. Ignore the "your" and imagine it is a "the", if it itches you. The sentence still makes exactly the same sense that I wanted it to make.
Post by
Adamsm
Sorry man, don't know why I always mess up the spelling of your name.
Post by
Atik
And this sort of defense actually works in the US army? Can anyone just come up with a bull&*!@ fairytale and make up excuses like that? Are you basing your words on anything or are you just pulling assumptions?
Unfortunately? Yes, yes it does.
You know why?
We don't expect anyone to think anymore. We don't actually investigate. People on all levels will go with the first story and pop it into the computer and the case is closed.
The ultimate cost of our freedom is that noone actually has to do their job.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.